Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The husband’s contention that the present case is not a case where the wife is hospitalised due to cruelty or harassment committed upon her, is not only unmerited but also cross the threshold of having a mentality that in a serious Section 498-A IPC cases, the woman should have injuries and medical treatment record of a hospital.
“The record shows that the petitioner (‘accused’) has committed heinous offences while he was on bail in other cases; and he has been convicted in the offences committed while on bail. When there is a long list of serious criminal involvements, the apprehension that the accused suffers from recidivism cannot be dismissed as imaginary.”
“Limitation seeks to prevent abuse of process by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions. However, at the same time, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not blind to the problems faced by litigants and provides for extension of the limitation period in certain cases under Section 4731 of the CrPC. Thus, CrPC also ensures that interests of bona fide complainants are not affected.”
Special leave petition – Exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order of the High Court
The Court stated that it is baffling that FIR propped up in India, especially considering that the wife has never pursued any criminal complaint against the petitioners in India or in Australia in eight years of marriage.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on corroboration of retracted confession, dating back to the year 1954.
It is not the petitioner’s case that he was not supplied with the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest and prior to the remand being sought. The remand application was detailed, and contained, effectively the same set of facts as were stated in the grounds of arrest.
In the present case, the complaint remained pending for several years and no application was filed by Respondent 2. Now, no purpose would be served by ordering the prosecution of the accused persons, after a long delay of 14 years, when Respondent 2 and his co-accused have already been convicted in a criminal trial, relating to the same occurrence.
The Court observed that the victim in her cross-examination had candidly spoken, that there was no talk between her and the accused regarding marriage proposal. Therefore, the sexual intercourse, if any, which occurred between them, is not a sequel of any allurement of marriage.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on commutation of sentence, dating back to the year 1954.
If the criminal procedures are continued in the present case, it is not likely to result in conviction and will amount to abuse of process of law.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on, confession of co-accused, dating back to the year 1954.
As parens patriae, the Court has the responsibility to safeguard the child’s interests and could not relinquish this duty by placing her welfare in the hands of relatives.
The prosecution case has crumbled like a house of cards. Neither the circumstances have been proved which can lead to a conclusion that the accused was complicit in offence, nor any consistent prosecution version has come which can be relied upon.
The report submitted by the Committee nowhere suggests that prescription of irrational combination of medicines by applicant is responsible for brain hemorrhage and consequential death of complainant’s wife.
by Arjun V. Harihar*
It was stated that to attract Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860, the accused must cheat and dishonestly induce the victim to deliver any property to any person or make, alter, or destroy a part of valuable property.
It is alleged that the local MLA-the petitioner and his supporters visited Hospital to show their sympathy to the victim and her family member and after taking name, address and photograph of victim, it was sent to media and other organization from the petitioner’s mobile number.
The Court stated that mere fact that at present hospitalisation was not required and the applicant can be treated on outpatient basis did not disentitle the applicant from grant of medical bail.
The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is sine qua non for the offence under Section 153-A1 of the Penal Code, 1860.